I'm not sure how well this would fly in federal court. You'd have to prove that voting machines infringe upon our conditional rights. That's pretty rough as far as burden of proof goes. People have been trying to prove tampering since Trump was elected, and have yet to do so.
Brody Brown
Would that fly if the goal is just to have paper trail? To ensure fairness and a secure voting right
"the point is not to BAN the voting machine as the crook system would deliver a hard fight against that. The idea is to implement countermeasure (as voter ID also) to allow the public to self investigate ,if suspicions arise, the voting count without resorting to a 'specialized electronic mogul'... every retard can count papers" No.163663494 in archived
Nathan Walker
The Supreme Court likely won't even touch the case. Electronic voting machines don't infringe on our right to vote. Not having a paper trail is not an infringement on our right to vote. They literally only care about the constitution.
Robert Robinson
>You'd have to prove that voting machines infringe upon our conditional rights Electronic(specialized & nonphysical) would infringe the common people to witness voting process, wouldn't it? That would denied the access to public.. in the sens that paper trail is the minimum requirement to allow EVERYONE to enforce their right
Jordan Lewis
Afaik, the constitution doesn't state that we have a right to witness the voting process. We have the right to vote, we don't have the right to monitor the entire process, unless the Supreme Court says so, and like I said. I highly doubt they would even see this case. Especially with other hot topics like gun control, etc. On the plate.
Joseph Lopez
>Electronic voting machines don't infringe on our right to vote right to vote ok, 1A perhaps i'm talking about fair information access, voting results are public, voting process is also a public thing, therefor ANY citizen could access and witness the voting process couldn't he? therefor Paper trail MUST be available for fair access
Luis Price
>we don't have the right to monitor the entire process mind boggling...
Wyatt Smith
No, if it's not specifically written into our constitution then it has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. There's no such thing as fair information access. For info like that you generally need a subpoena or a court order and good luck trying to get a judge to ruin his career to subpoena the federal government. Especially when the people committing voter fraud already have their hands entangled in the federal government. That's just how our government works. It's the reason why our constituion is so important to a lot of us. C'est la vie.
James Fisher
District-->county-->state--->...>supreme court
feasible in local initiative no?
Dylan Jenkins
>good luck trying to get a judge to ruin his career to subpoena the federal government
I get you
Logan Cook
The Supreme Court decides which cases to see. The case can take all of the proper avenues to get to the Supreme Court and they could simply decide they don't even want to look at the case. Gay marriage was pushed to the Supreme Court multiple times over the last few decades. They only looked at the case a couple of times and one of them was a executive order written by Obama himself. There are plenty of cases every year the Supreme Court just decides to toss aside.
Sebastian Fisher
But thinking about how judicial in commonwealth law structure, there is a crack somewhere, always... just a matter of formulation and references any ideas?
Carson Martinez
>The case can take all of the proper avenues to get to the Supreme Court
again if the matter is ruled on local level, many states have different voting process.... so...
Of course "a supreme court decision" would be a final nail in the coffin. I already knew it was out of reach...
How couldn't a citizen initiative ask that for their community?
Isaiah Turner
As a law student, this case right here would be one that I would refuse up, down, left, right, back and forth. The problem with our legal system is that the final decision always comes down to a person, or group of people. In this case you're trying to fight the federal government, and both sides of the federal government at the same time (assuming voter fraud is happening on both sides (which it is)). On top of that, you're requesting information based on fact finding without having enough evidence, so far there is no actual evidence to believe that machines are being tampered with. Judges here are elected, and they will almost always do what they think is best for their public image and reelection. Most Americans truly do not give a shit about our government as a whole. 80% of people can't even name our presidential cabinet. People don't care, so long as it doesn't affect them on a personal micro level. Until voter fraud screws over 50%+ of the population, it will just be another headline on CNN that will be forgotten until the next time it's brought up.
Luis Davis
Because any issue like this will be argued all the way to the Supreme Court and then pushed aside. It's not worth any lawyer or representatives time to push it that far just to hear "well, we might get to it next session. But no promises." It's not a landmark case that people want to have decided right here, right now. People are more concerned about gun control and marijuana legalization.
Adrian Roberts
for what i understand, in us, every voting process is overseen by local representatives (R,D and/or mix) then accusing would require burden of proof ok! (corruption, tampering, etc..)
but if you extract the "the voting process is corrupt" thing and focus on a "public access to voting process !counting!" (or different phrasing) implying(consequence) the paper trail necessity for "fairness" (won't use a computer)
Connor Perry
point being
to enforce a right vs point at someone and battle him
Matthew Ross
Well that's the problem. We don't have any rights to monitor the voting process. It's not in our constitution and not in any state law. In the eyes of the federal government or state government, we simply do not posses that right, and any party actually tampering with the machines would be very reluctant to fight for that right.
Good lad! Even if you did a shitty job at following the rules, you played it... Congrats! Here is your prize : pornhub.com go to photo/amateur for nudes... Well done
Robert Morgan
but this *not yet* right is definitely arguable in court, ain't it? public matter, information access, etc
James Gray
Of course. But that brings us full circle again. If someone were to argue this, there's only one place for it to go in the end. Up to to Supreme Court. Which is never a guaranteed case, so it's not really worth it unless it's a 'hot topic'. Plus on top of that, we've had so many accusations of voter fraud recently (on both sides) that you would seem like just another whack job representative who thinks the government is out to get you. The problem isn't that we *can't* do it. The problem is it's not really worth it, especially when most Americans don't even care in the first place.
Brayden Allen
there is a crack somewhere dude... any ideas? precedent laws/court decisions
John Smith
>there's only one place for it to go in the end. Up to to Supreme Court why? a paper trail PARALLEL (my idea was having voting machines printing a readable receipt/ 1 for you to assert the info, another for the ballot, stored physical data) you mean that every judge would declare himself unqualified to discuss the matter?
Lucas Flores
Precedent would be hard, because voting machines are fairly new. There haven't been a lot of court cases on this, and precedence has to start somewhere. Not so much unqualified, but like I said. Judges are elected. They will usually stick to cases that will get them re-elected. Cases like gay marriage were picked up quick because these judges were showing that they were fair and just for all regardless of race, relgion, sexual preference etc. It painted them in a good light. Even if you didn't want gay marriage you could appreciate a judge who fights for equality. This isn't really a social justice issue. Americans are tired of hearing about our voting system and how it's rigged. Hell, thanks to the electoral college most of our votes don't count anyway. My state has voted republican for since 1968. Even if wanted to vote democrat, it wouldn't matter anyway. So basically it's just a giant shit storm. The American public doesn't care about voter fraud, judges only care what the American public wants as the American public gives them their job. Why risk your career when you could do what you've been doing for 30 years and just get re-elected?
Jack Murphy
Would it be bizarre? to have a district judge declaring: "Given the argumentation, the court mandate the representatives to produce a paper trail for every vote, and count" no corruption is argued, the wellbeing of the process is
Caleb Myers
>because voting machines are fairly new forget these machines or the means of the voting process, I was thinking of precedent in public access sort of decision (in former case of corruption maybe) >The American public doesn't care about voter fraud sad brainwashing storm >Why risk your career when you could do what you've been doing for 30 years and just get re-elected? You mean that even though a paper trail parallel wouldn't imply de facto corruption of the system. It would still mean this judge is naming the corruption....?
Zachary Butler
Yeah, that would be extremely strange. Especially because someone would challenge the ruling. In that case the appellate court would more than likely put a hold on the ruling. Basically, until the case was finally decided the ruling wouldn't really hold any weight. It was the same way with gay marriage. The district court said 'gays have the right to be married' and gays couldn't immediately go out and get married. As soon as the ruling was challenged, the law that 'gays could get married' was now the law being decided on court. So they put a hold on that law until it went all the way through the Supreme Court. Plenty of states still denied gays the right to get married until the very end. Also, sorry if this is getting convoluted. I'm rounding out a 10 hour graves shift, so my lack of sleep might be getting to me.
Jace Martinez
>Also, sorry if this is getting convoluted You were clear as spring water, thx
Carter Parker
>someone would challenge the ruling the representatives? Hired lawyer wolf pack? super bad press
Charles Ross
We don't have any right to information of that's what you're asking. There is plenty of precedent on this. Usually if the common person wants information from the government, they have to file under the freedom of information act (that's an entire different beast). Of course it Implies corruption. We all know they're doing it. Dems have been caught with dead voters plenty of times. We literally Gerry mander to swing which way a state votes. We all know how corrupt politicians are. That's the real reason Trump was elected. My dad voted Trump and he thinks Trump is an idiot. We voted Trump because he wasn't just another politican that lied. Benghazi was the thing that murdered Hillary. The emails were the only thing anyone ever talked about. She was just another sneaky politician. We know how rigged and dirty politics are. The Truth of the matter is, out side of Sup Forums, I don't discuss politics in real life. Most people would rather not talk about it and just secretly vote. Don't let Sup Forums fool you into thinking we're all leather wearing skin heads. Only 54.87% of America even cast a vote in 2012. People just don't care. This is America friend. There is someone somewhere that wouldn't like this. The American political system especially the judicial is a shit show. We have privatised prison systems that lobby for strict drug laws so they can keep themselves full and for make a profit.
Cameron Phillips
>We have privatised prison systems the numbers are crazy, if i remember correctly it's like US pop 5% of the world/US prisoners 25% of the world, proportionally far more than China nor russia... the liberties bad boys It would be fun to compare it to NK
Thomas Bennett
Sup Forums hates me for this, but systemic racism is actively used to keep minorities down while intrinsically using the system for profit.
Benjamin Wright
>they have to file under the freedom of information act I like this "beast", what the gov/public produces as doc, writings, etc... is accessible "free"(file/procedure/request) to public... As every voter produce a vote, wouldn't it be public doc? problem: from vote to information access would be every electronic steps easyly tampered>entire different beast meaning the title of the act is misleading right..?
William Flores
no hate I think, just the "systemic racism" wording... just imagine "gangsta rap" never existed...
Samuel Ross
Don't quote me on this, but I don't think votes count as a public document. There are things such as medical records for example that can't be accessed by anyone without a really good reason (in theory). We have things like hipaa laws that protect medical documents. So if you want those there are more hoops to jump through. The name isn't misleading, but the process is a pain. You're requesting the government to give up information. The problem is, it's the government that gets to decide if you have a good enough reason. On top of that, the government can decide they have a better reason that trumps your reason. National security, or one of our many confidentiality laws, like hipaa. In turn meaning unless there is a lot of public interest, it'll be shut down immediately. Half of America won't even vote. You think the other half cares if they get a ticket stub after they vote? You're right, it's definitely a culture thing. The problem is our prison system promotes it at all. The simple fact we lock people up for profit at all, and then on top of it have the most prisoners? That should be enough of an indication right there.
